• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Taylor v. State, No. 25S-CR-349, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 17, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

A defendant must have the opportunity to personally question a witness to probe their recollection, test their reliability, expose their bias, and draw out favorable facts through cross-examination. When a trial court denies a defendant this constitutional right, the error requires reversal unless the State proves it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether the State met its burden, reviewing courts consider several factors: the significance of the improperly admitted evidence to the State’s case; whether that evidence was merely cumulative; whether it was corroborated or contradicted by other evidence; and the extent of cross-examination or questioning on the improperly admitted evidence.

Mapes v. Carroll Cnty., No. 25A-CC-660, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2025).

December 22, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Litigant’s persistent abuse of the judicial process and disregard for prior warnings warrant filing restrictions at the trial-court level.

In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.W., No. 24A-JT-3052, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2025).

December 8, 2025 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. DeBoer

In a termination of parental rights case, parents’ due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to compel DCS to disclose the names and contact information of child’s foster parents because that information could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence.

First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Vanhoose, No. 25A-CC-898, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 18, 2025).

November 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Foley

A garnishment order is a continuing lien. Employer is liable for the amount of garnished wages that were not remitted after employee was rehired.

Elzey v. State, No. 24S-CR-436, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 20, 2025).

November 24, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

The Indiana State Public Defender must represent all indigent individuals who are confined in a penal facility in Indiana or committed to the Department of Correction due to a criminal conviction or delinquency adjudication. However, the Public Defender Statute, I.C. 33-40-1-2, and our post-conviction rules specifically Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(a), still enable SPD to exercise its discretion in agreeing to representation.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 597
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs